CRAWFORD v. WATSON

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedOctober 30, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-00538
StatusUnknown

This text of CRAWFORD v. WATSON (CRAWFORD v. WATSON) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
CRAWFORD v. WATSON, (S.D. Ind. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION ANTONIO CRAWFORD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:20-cv-00538-JPH-DLP ) T. J. WATSON, ) FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS DIRECTOR, ) MACKELLAR, ) MARSHALL, ) EDWARDS, ) ) Defendants. ) Order on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is granted to the extent that the plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Twenty Dollars and Fourteen Cents ($20.14). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The plaintiff shall have through November 25, 2020, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court. The plaintiff is informed that after the initial partial filing fee is paid, she will be obligated to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income each month that the amount in her account exceeds $10.00, until the full filing fee of $350.00 is paid. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(2). After the initial partial filing fee is received, a collection order will be issued to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s custodian. In making this ruling the Court acknowledges that the plaintiff has previously "struck-out" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners who have accrued three "strikes" from filing actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous are barred from bringing another action in federal court without prepayment of fees unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to proceed on the basis that she is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Specifically, her claim that extended solitary confinement exacerbates her propensity for self-harm satisfies this standard. Wallace v. Baldwin, 895 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 2018). As does her claim that she faces a looming threat of violence atthe United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana. Jones v. Jeffreys, 798 F. App'x 29, 31 (7th Cir. 2020). SO ORDERED. Date: 10/30/2020

James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

ANTONIO CRAWFORD 43793-424 TERRE HAUTE - USP TERRE HAUTE U.S. PENITENTIARY Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. BOX 33 TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808

Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA kfalk@aclu-in.org

Gavin Minor Rose ACLU OF INDIANA grose@aclu-in.org

Financial Deputy Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wallace v. Baldwin
895 F.3d 481 (Seventh Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
CRAWFORD v. WATSON, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-watson-insd-2020.